C.30.TFS-REL:4.3 - Claim-kind applications named by value
| Claim kind being made | Governing pattern to apply |
|---|---|
| Work occurrence or work result | A.15.1 for the occurrence; A.15 for Method/Work alignment; the governing work-result or P2W relation for those claims |
| Gate decision | A.21 |
| Evidence claim | A.10 for source recovery and bounded reliance; G.6 for an addressable provenance path; the applicable subject rule to judge whether the evidence supports the named claim or meets the named requirement |
| Assurance claim | B.3 |
| Causal flow or intervention claim | C.28 |
| Mathematical-lens use | C.29 |
| Architecture adequacy, description use, or structural-view adequacy | C.30 for architecture adequacy, C.30.AD for architecture-description use, or C.30.ASV for structural-view adequacy |
| Function-like wording | A.6.F |
| Interface, signature, or module compatibility | A.6.M for module-claim repair and the direct pattern for the interface claim; A.6.5 only when reusable relation-participant typing is needed, and A.6.0 when a signature declaration is being made |
| Architecture decision | the project-side architecture decision pattern when the corresponding claim is being made |
This table is the single boundary for generic non-flow claims. Apply F.19’s plausible-reader test before adding a local guard. Relevant candidates include structure-as-architecture, graph-description-as-architecture, flow-as-work-log, crossing-as-gate, valuation-as-score, generated relation-graph proof, and prompt-data-tool flow as authority proof.